The fire alarm which went off just as Helen Clark was about to speak has turned out to be a genuine fire alarm, not something done by the protesters. In that case it was bloody unfortunate timing, as it forced all the delegates and MPs onto the street where the protesters heckled them.

The protesters were the normal suspects complaining about the Urewera arrests, snails, mines etc.

Earlier in the day John Boscawen and a dozen or so supporters handed our pamphlets highlighting the defects of the Electoral Finance Act. They got radio coverage most of the morning.

I wasn’t there, but was interesting to hear from someone who was, the different reaction to the protest from two MPs who got promoted to Cabinet in the last reshuffle. One of the new Cabinet Ministers had a discussion over the human rights issues around the EFA, which was respectful and courteous and went on for around five minutes or so. Another of the new Cabinet Ministers ripped up the pamphlet in front of the EFA protesters.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

And I’d like to call bullshit on Three, who had a breathless report about the Labour conference being “gatecrashed”. Pardon me for getting a little reality into the room, but I don’t call a small number of people holding a protest outside the venue gate crashing.

The two very different protests you mention actually came together, in that a couple of anti-EFA/Act supporters were on the anti-terror-raid marches. When one protest leader said she didn’t want to replace the current lot of bastards with another lot of bastards “including act” one of the anti-EFA people jumped back a bit… but other than that they actually worked well together, which was a surprising and somewhat charming occurence. One rightist protestor even had a US flag draped across their back, and stood in solidarity between two leftist protestors waving Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe flags…

The EFA silent line of weak protestors mainly consisted of 5-10 year old boys who were holding anti-EFA signs. John Boscowen thought he would come up and talk to me which was random. He reckoned he knew of me before……….twit.

They then scattered as they were scared as hell when the anti-“terror raid” protestors arrived.

The fire alarm was a short set back in time, but the solidarity of the party made up for that.

It’s wonderful that “[t]he fire alarm was a short set back in time, but the solidarity of the party made up for that” – but you forgot to share your thoughts on this unfortunate stain on democracy:

One of the new Cabinet Ministers had a discussion over the human rights issues around the EFA, which was respectful and courteous and went on for around five minutes or so. Another of the new Cabinet Ministers ripped up the pamphlet in front of the EFA protesters.

So it’s ok for a (presumably) Labour cabinet minister to rip up pamphlets. But it wouldn’t be ok if a National cabinet minister did the same. I’ve read some of your blog and I’m in no doubt that this would be your position.

Still, on the bright side, at least you didn’t have Len Richards dishing out his idea of megaphone justice at this event!

Absolutely not. I have quite clearly pointed out in my previous post peoples right to protest, whether that include materials like pamphlets or whether they utilise things like megaphones. People have the right to protest. Full stop. It does not matter who the person is, they have the right to protest, cabinet minister or not!

Ripping a pamphlet up is hardly anything more than a gesture that I would interpret as the ministers obvious disagreement with the protestors position on the issue.

I know as a National supporter you will probably have an issue with people having freedom of speech, and we feel sorry for you.

James Sleep,if helen davis in a maternal mindset, (NOT LIKELY, SEX YUK) said , faithfull james sleep ,DARLING the tooth fairy exists and its liarbor party policy.James Sleep as a true believer of aunt H, and liarbor (would you believe her)????????tell me james does aunty helens toothfairy exist, shes fighting back (SNIGGER laugh).

“Absolutely not. I have quite clearly pointed out in my previous post peoples right to protest, whether that include materials like pamphlets or whether they utilise things like megaphones. People have the right to protest. Full stop. It does not matter who the person is, they have the right to protest, cabinet minister or not!

Ripping a pamphlet up is hardly anything more than a gesture that I would interpret as the ministers obvious disagreement with the protestors position on the issue.

I know as a National supporter you will probably have an issue with people having freedom of speech, and we feel sorry for you”.

My, you are a precocious and somewhat puffed up little thing JS… probably better to concentrate your efforts on passing NCEA at school until you are old enough to vote before pontificating to an adult audience.

James SLEEP….The EFA was an effective gag on anyone who wanted to protest about Liabour Goverment Policy. Where was your leader while the rest of the western world leaders and peoples were protesting about the murder of innocent monks in Tibet.

I was one of those that was there supporting John Boscowen and the rights to free speech (not the rationed version Labour would give us). To put people at ease it was Shane Jones who ripped up the leaflet right in front of us. Well within his rights to do so but I note that while he was very smarmy about it he didn’t have too much to say when asked if he were embarrassed to be part of a party which wrote a law so bad they didn’t know themselves how to comply with it and promptly broke it first.

It was quite a mix of people that we met from the Labour party. Some were very pleasant and stopped to have a chat. Some were quite the opposite including an older gentleman who was very racist and said he wasn’t prepared to listen to us as we weren’t Maori. The same gentleman waved his walking cane in our noses while threatening to get his entire family down there to “smack” us. Not a good look to confront a peaceful protest with threats of violence.

James for a young person yourself I am surprised you seem to be suggesting that our protest was somewhat weakened because there were young people involved. Young people have just as much vested in this country as anyone else. And to correct you everyone bar one was above 18.

Oh and I couldn’t resist pointing out something for you James. You note “Just because you have freedom of speech doesn’t mean people should be forced to listen.” Which is absolutely correct. However the EFA restricts people putting out that message for others to either listen to or ignore. Halfway there sunshine.

It does not matter who the person is, they have the right to protest, cabinet minister or not!

No James, the cabinet minister could have chosen to walk off – that would have been an adequate (and suitably measured) response. Speaking of everyone having the right to protest, when did you last see a High Court judge protesting in the streets?

Who cares. The whole conference was a giant wank off about how scared they are of John Key. Labour are bereft of ideas and can’t think of anything better for an election pitch than to demonise their competition.

HOW MANY CHILDREN ie KIDS have been killed under aunty helens rule , the poor bashed ,boiled, thrown at the roof , put in clothes dryers , swung on clothlines , used as a martial art props for kung fu body kicks ETC ETC ETC again, MOST OF THE USELESS ARSEHOLE KILLERS are pathetic low life /low wage , ethnic tossiers that aunty helen has encouraged to settle here, her power base,All what my post has said is the truth, the truth hurts , but look at the bright looking defendants in the papers, They make you sigh, and this is james sleeps and helen davis POSSIBLE power base , a culture of primitive drunken poor educated LIARBOR (POSSIBLE) supporters, go get these ethnic minority supporters liarbor but i would love their kids to grow up and become citizens and not a opening kid death story on tv
ps MR Farrar i have been concerned about our SPIRALING UPWARDS child killings under the welfare state under helen clark/nee davis This isnt a rant,kids are dying rapidly under labour
if you feel that you must punish me with demerites, could you give an example of a pure PC none polictical post so i dont waste my time as a poster and tradesman person, submiting my thoughts

To be fair, I don’t think we should be surprised that you’re going to sledge the opposition in front of a room of hardcore partisans. What did raise my eyebrows slightly is that there was no eye-catching new policy on offer. Wonder if Slippery Mike is telling folks that there’s not quite so much dosh in the kitty as first through, so all the vote buying has got to wait until the Budget and the last week of the campaign?

Ripping a pamphlet up is hardly anything more than a gesture that I would interpret as the ministers obvious disagreement with the protestors position on the issue.

I know as a National supporter you will probably have an issue with people having freedom of speech, and we feel sorry for you.

James Sleep: I’m tempted to be equally trite and condescending. But I’m a little older than you, and remember being advised back in the 90’s to avoid provocative confrontations with protesters outside National Party conferences. Get a little more age and experience under your belt, and you may one day recognise that free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to be a thuggish bully.

Lets get real under helen clark nee davis a bunch of touriest are stabbed by arseholes down in CHCH , this is a good look to the rest of the world,visit clean green NZ and get bashed raped or stabbed, fuck we have killed tourest, OUR COUNTRY ISNT SAFE , opps we can have a conferance, THE LABOUR PARTY wgtn ,shigding, DO THE LIARBOR party worry about our visitors deaths???????? statistics ,does the liarbor party REALLY need to worry ,HOW MANY VOTES,are involved?????????????

opps im back ,helen clark/nee davis , said shes listerned to the voice of NZ i have had tea so i dont want to gag, and ruin my TRUE partners cooking but does the witch live in NEVER NEVER LAND along with peter davis.Does she believe her vision is a true vision of our country or a vision for her 4th term survivial

Labour are unlikely to get much of a lift out of this conference. It looked poorly attended and poorly managed…whose idea was it to have four MPs try to rip-off Kenny Rogers with third-form quality lyrics about John Key? Labour used to have a reputation as a slick operation. Just embarrassing for them.

I’m not sure of how long their protest lasted, but as I had breakfast across the street yesterday there was only John Boscawen, and three young nats. I’m not sure if I would classify it as an effective political protest. Given that an hour or two later I came out to buy a coffee and the numbers were still the same. On the bright side, I did recognise one of the Young Nats so that was nice to catch up. I won’t name him, but he does work for DPF.

Minnie.
First of all, it was a Congress – not a conference.
It wasn’t poorly attended, far from it. Participation was much larger than in the 2005 Congress.
That song was drawn up the night before as a joke for the social. It was bloody hilarious.

From what I’ve read in the media reports this conference has pissed me right off. Of course it’s a (semi) legitimate campaign platform to bag your opponent a bit, but to focus on it completely? It seems that these Labour twats will stop at nothing (including blatant dishonesty) to demonise Key.
Those of us who are a bit older and/or smarter can see it for the cynical attempt to discredit that it is, but I just get sooooo pissed off at all the brainless Labour retard cheerleader squad, (especially the young impressionable types) who believe it all completely, and for the next six months will trot around regurgitating this shit to anyone who will listen (c.f. sleepy and redbus above). It’s so fucking nauseating.
And rebus, conference/congress, who gives a shit. It was a lame-arsed Labour reichsparteitag by any other name, full of bullshit and bluster. Pathetic.

I’m surprised that with soooo much experience in these matters that you don’t know that policy isn’t released at party conferences or congresses.

In the old days they were about debating and formulating policy, and in a good year might have some limited impact on the policy-making process, regardless of party. (I refer to the only two parties whose policies actually matter, in our fair democracy.) These days, we’ve adopted the American model, and the conferences are hollow shells, policy-wise, no more than platforms for the party leaders to strut their stuff for the cameras with the membership a mere backdrop. Stopped going in the 1990s when it became so stage-managed and pointless on my side of the fence (yes, under dear leader) that I couldn’t stomach it any more.

And, despite your self-proclaimed advantage in terms of age, you still managed to be trite and condescending. As someone who has more age and experience still, I say, “Get a little more age and experience under your belt, and you may one day learn that one can’t help but be trite and condescending to pretentious young pups.”

Helmet: “From what I’ve read in the media reports this conference has pissed me right off.”

Helmet, was it this bit that pissed you off so much? (from ZB news): “Dr Cullen also used the speech to slam National Party leader John Key as someone who throws his principals aside to tell people what he thinks they want to hear. He described Mr Key as slippery on everything, and being surrounded by a weird collection of has-beens and never will-bes.”

Note that the spelling of principles is in the original, but then I guess we are not dealing with the print media here.

He described Mr Key as slippery on everything, and being surrounded by a weird collection of has-beens and never will-bes.

Not your quote, I realise, but don’t you think the same comment could be levelled against Labour’s front bench?

Oh, and given his track record on deep dark budget secrets, and announcing chewing gum-sized tax cuts only to later retract them, Cullen might want to look in the mirror before deciding who is the slipperiest of them all.

The twoprotests provided a lovely example of how free speech is alive and well.

The Tory protesters who had obviously never organised a protest in their lives looked pathetic. There were hardly any of them and they just stood there looking a bit grumpy and threw a few dorky insults like “how’s your free speech today” – come on, get some material before you arrive in future. Goes to show that when throwing money at it does not help, they are lost.

On the other hand the Tuhoe protesters turned up and with no money and showed that free speech works – they were very, very effective.

Peak Oil,
On Cullen, I am on record here as saying that Cullen can be an arrogant prick at times. (Okay, not exactly a startling revelation…)

But one thing I will say for him is that he has actually shown a great deal more courage and conviction than you people are prepared to give him credit for. I have no doubt that he genuinely believes that tax cuts of the order that National suggests would be inflationary and counter-productive. Where is the evidence that middle class NZers (never mind the wealthy) would save or invest any of the tax cuts? All the evidence shows the contrary. Instead, he’s actually done more than anybody else since Douglas’ super scheme in the late 1970s to secure NZers’ retirement in years to come.

He may be wrong on these things (though I doubt it). But he has been prepared to suffer a great deal of opprobrium to do what he believes is right.

And he wasn’t, as far as we know, responsible for the deep dark secrets nonsence. That was Mike Williams, wasn’t it?

Also, he finally did something about the crap tertiary education policies his government inherited. Took longer than it should have, but that wasn’t his fault. It’s all very well going on about productivity, but the tertiary education sector is a key part of the knowledge economy, whatever, and at least he did something to sort it out.

Peak Oil: well if he is an experienced and effective protest organiser (the evidence I have seen would suggest otherwise) then he had a real rock bottom off day on Saturday. perhaps he should attend a camp in the Uraweras and get a refresher course from some real pros.

bwakile: Just as witty as the folks at the ‘protest’. Glad to see you morons are consistent.

“On the other hand the Tuhoe protesters turned up and with no money and showed that free speech works”

Look here NOBODY can tell me this Ronald is not suffering badly from bad mental health. Do these communists ever think before they post such insanity? And, this dropkick has the audacity to call somebody else a moron. Only in New Zealand can one witness the show case of severe socialist stinking thinking.

For the record I was very happy with our protest. At various times we had 6 to 10 people there. It wasn’t big. It wasn’t intended to be. I wanted the opportunity to distribute some material to Labour MPs and supporters and I got it. I was impressed with the number of Labour MPs who did take it.

We stopped around 12.30pm, as the others arrived. There was no need to ruin it by staying.

As for not organsing a protest before, Ronald, the last march I organsised last year in December was attended by over 5000. I was not trying to distrupt the Labour meeting as the others seemed to want to do.

I am in Tauranga tonight where I organsing my next protest march for Saturday morning 3 May. We will march from the corner of 1st Avenue and Devonport road through the central city to Baycourt for a rally.

What a load of conspiracy nonsense and twaddle. Or as they would say in my old country, David Farrar you are full of shit.

I was at the conference and was sitting next to the fire alarm that was triggered. I, along with at least half a dozen others, clearly saw a young, shortish woman leap from her seat, smash the glass to trigger the alarm, and bolt like a bat out of hell from the hall. This image was captured by one of the delegates on a cellphone camera. The alarm sounded immediately thereafter.

A genuine fire alarm? Come on DPF, pull the other one. Strange that you don’t reference a source for your information – I would suggest it is because you don’t have one. Credibility please!

And as for the protesters, being one of that pariah group of tobacco smokers I was in and out of the hall regularly all morning so am well qualified to comment. There were at the peak of the ‘protest’ 6 people, including 2 kids, holding a banner decrying the death of free speech. I don’t know John Boscawen but I strongly suspect it may have been him, the wife and the offspring.

At the end of the day the protest was somewhat ironic considering that they were in fact exercising free speech! It was also amusing to observe the extreme right and the lunatic left united in their collective diminutive fury. All power to each of them – democracy reigns!

[DPF: My comment was based on this NZPA story:

The shrieking fire alarm was assumed to have been triggered by the demonstrators, but it was announced to be genuine.

It turned out to be a false alarm and, when she was asked about it after her speech, Miss Clark said there had been no security issues.

You can apologise anytime you like. The NZPA story is not online, but its reference number is #3611397]

Or as they would say in my old country, David Farrar you are full of shit.

Did they have any candidate training sessions during the conference, or did you wag them to have a smoke? If you want to get votes in Botany, you might want to consider the old proverb “you catch more bird with honey than with vinegar.”

And, despite your self-proclaimed advantage in terms of age, you still managed to be trite and condescending.

Jafapete: This year is going mark the seventh general election campaign I’ve been involved in — and none of the other six involved the rather thuggish conduct Sleep considers acceptable. And, yes, Jafapete I attended a few National Party conferences in the 90s where we were quite clearly told not to hang around and engage in provocative confrontations with protesters. Simple statement of fact.

Brendan Sheehan, the Electoral Finance Bill was amended to allow so called”issue campaigns”. I am running an issue based campaign….the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. As such I do not need to register. I am not trying to “persuade or encourage people to vote or not to vote”, for one or more political parties. However I beleive in a democracy I should have the right to, and that is the problem. That is why I beleive the Act should be repealed, or at least amended to reflect the submissions of the Human Rights Commision. The HRC argued that if there are to be restrictions on our rights to speak for or against any politcal party they should be for no more than 3 months…..instead the the restrictions apply for a full election year.

The HRC also endorsed the Electoral Commisison’s submission that individuals should be allowed to speand up the $250-300,000. …..so we have restrictions three longer than the HRC recommended and then allowing us to spend less than half what they recommended.

We are in a very sad state when the government is not prepared to listen to its Human Rights Commission. If you read the phamplet I was handing out yesterday you will have read I have huge respect for former trade unionist Rosslyn Noonan, chief Commisioner of the HRC. She took a courageous and principled stand on behalf of all New Zealanders.

Considering one of the protestors was one of David Farrar’s Curia Research employees, who is also an executive holder within the National Party – Curia is so totally independent and neutral – That in itself is also load of shit!

Boscowen seems to think free speech has been murdered by the EFA…oh but hang on….was it him that was outside the Labour Party Congress expressing free speech? AFTER the EFA had been written into law? Yes, it most certainly was!

I think maybe he should put his money into the starving children in third world countries. The only reason why he is fucked off is because he has millions and he can’t spend it to buy a positive election result.

We are so over John Boscowen, when people start to hear his real past e.g ACT funder etc – it shows his true colours!

[DPF: Curia has around 60 – 70 staff at present, the vast vast majority of whom are not in any way involved with politics. Curia polled for several left wing candidates at the last local body elections, including a Labour Party member. It also polled for some newspapers. ]

“I don’t know John Boscawen but I strongly suspect it may have been him, the wife and the offspring.”

Brenden – you should indulge less in speculation, it is unbecoming for a Labour candidate to get things so horribly wrong. There was only one person there who was under 18 and as I understand it, he insisted to his mother that he be allowed to come. Also the woman you refer to (and everyone else there) is not related to John Boscawen in any way other than their desire not to see free speech trampled.

We heard it a lot during the day that we were exercising our free speech and therefore implying no problem exists. Michael Cullen even said so. Well what if we wanted to print something off and send it to every household in New Zealand saying “don’t vote Labour because of the EFA”?. We wouldn’t be allowed if it breached the $120k cap. So yes it is fine in person doing what we did, but trying to push that message out to wider masses is where free speech starts to be undermined. What this shows is a fundamental lack of understanding from most Labour party members as to the issue – they just can not see what the problem is. I say most because there were a few Labour members who would quietly admit that the law is a dog and thanked us for our presence.

John as stated in my original post I totally support your right to campaign, although I must confess I did not read your ‘phamplet’, just as I elected not to waste the valuable minutes I have on this planet reading that of your comrade Valerie Morse.

Interesting juxtaposition of protests however. I don’t blame you for sending the kids home when that woman arrived on the scene.

By the way, they taught us a mantra at school that went ‘I before E, except after C’. Therefore the word to describe your held values is believe – not ‘beleive’.

Mike Collins I think you have emphatically underlined the precise reason that the EFA was introduced. How many average New Zealanders have more than $120k to spend to make sure there view is heard? How many Kiwi’s actually have a spare $120 to spend to get their message out?

This is the precise reason the EFA was necessary – to prevent the wealthy having a disproportionate voice in our democracy.

Are you suggesting that those with the means should be entitled to a greater and wider say than those without the means? If so, please just stop obfuscating and say it. We can then put the issue to the test.

If we all have the same number of bucks we can spend then provided we can raise it we are all entitled to an equivalent say in the political debate. No-one is favoured, no-one is disadvantaged.

Brenden – I am saying your contempt for people with money should not go so far as to exclude them from partaking in getting their message out as best suits them. As James Sleep noted earlier – “Just because you have freedom of speech doesn’t mean people should be forced to listen.”

Money is simply a resource which can be converted into disseminating a message. Much like time or union “volunteers” are resources that can be converted into getting a message out there. It is repugnant that Labour thinks that it is ok to regulate one resource while conveniently ignoring those resources which on the whole benefit it more. Were it being consistent Labour would have also regulated time and effort. Not that I am suggesting it should, I’m simply highlighting that the scrum is being screwed.

It is also the height of arrogance to assume that individual voters are incapable of seeing through expensive campaigns. Labour are saying people are too thick not to be captured by flashy big money campaigns. Well sorry Brenden the evidence doesn’t support the view that money buys elections in this country.

From what I have seen and heard from the Labour Party Congress it appears more of the same that is; we know best, trust us with taxpayers money (don’t you just love it when the endless PR spin espouses “another new initiative provided by the government) and the James Sleeps’ of this world fall back on the old socialist mantra “solidarity”.

When will the left stop fighting their battles of the past and engage in reasoned (ie non ideological) augument so that the we actually debate the best way of solving the problems of our country in a pragmatic way.

However in the interest of fairness when did I ever express a contempt for people with money? This assumption you have made is simply incorrect.

My objection is not the accumulation of wealth, but rather to the advocated legislative recognition that the possession of such means allows one a greater say than ones fellow citizen.

And of course Labour are not saying, and have never said, that people are too thick not to be captured by flashy big money campaigns.

However one would have to be be thick not to realise that big business do not spend billions of dollars annually on advertising because they believe it is ineffective. The question is do we wish to allow representation to be marketed like a can of Coke?

I thought the $120k limit was on an organisation not on one individual? If so, the comments about average NZers not having 120k to spend are irrelevant, pointless drivel – but of course the stock in trade of anyone who can’t raise a rational argument!

Brendensheehan, your analogy in regard to Coke is peurile, if Coke tasted like cat’s piss no amount of marketing dollars would boost sales and the same goes for political advertising, your problem (like most of the left) is that you have some sort of Catholic belief that your message (or propaganda) is superior (or should I say infallible?) and therefore you cannot countenace anyone challenging your dogmatic view of the world, even if they are prepared to spend their own money (as opposed to your party’s use of the tax payers money).

You’ve accused DPF before of censoring you and he’s denied it. I suggest you send him a polite email (he’s responded to previous emails from me reasonably promptly) rather than whining like a little boy – oh hold on.

brendansheehan: However one would have to be be thick not to realise that big business do not spend billions of dollars annually on advertising because they believe it is ineffective. The question is do we wish to allow representation to be marketed like a can of Coke?

That is a good question. So what are your feelings on Labour’s illegal overspend at the last election, where they first accepted and then ignored the electoral officials statements and stole $800,000 of public funding and overspent by a like amount?

Followed soon after by retrospective legislation to legalize what they had been doing illegally for a while now?

Personally? I’m starting to lean towards Pepsi because of things like that.

James Sleep: We are so over John Boscowen, when people start to hear his real past e.g ACT funder etc – it shows his true colours!

Wait. What is wrong with being an ACT funder? Or do you not believe that people are allowed to support any political party they choose to?

“Oh and David Farrar, you are an opponent of the EFA, and you are censoring me on your blog!!!!
WTF is with that. Who is the one restricting free speech now!”

It’s incredible that James Sleep, the little commissar, has the temerity to complain about censorship. He, who is the prime censor of dissenting opinion on his blog and who would ban anybody who “offends” him.

This socialist boy deserves a good kick in the ass before sending him back to school to finish his education.

Peak Oil Conspiracy: You’ve accused DPF before of censoring you and he’s denied it. I suggest you send him a polite email (he’s responded to previous emails from me reasonably promptly) rather than whining like a little boy – oh hold on.

James has just run into the moderation system. In all likelyhood he included a link, which almost invariable puts a comment into moderation. But it’s only in the world of a twisted leftist that the EFA is not muzzling freespeech, but an attempt at fighting spam bots is.

I was actually waiting for a bit of advice from you Craig, you seem to know everything and I am always willing to learn.

Please ignore any advice I proffer. I’m sure your standard MO is going to go down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick on the campaign trail — which is fine with me.

Considering one of the protestors was one of David Farrar’s Curia Research employees, who is also an executive holder within the National Party – Curia is so totally independent and neutral – That in itself is also load of shit!

Sleepy: Are you suggesting DPF – or any employer – should be following their employees round and making sure they don’t engage in ‘inappropriate’ political speech or belong to any undesirable organisations outside work? Have a look at the Human Rights Act sometime.

Brendan, your comments at 10.44 pm last night (picked up by Anthony at 11.21) highlight why the Act is wrong and should be repealed.
You ask what “average Kiwi” has $120,000 to spend campaigning against a political party. The supportters of the Act have continued to mislead New Zealanders by arguing this Act is all about “rich ” people trying to buy elections. It is patently not. The $120,000 applies equally to individuals and “groups of individuals”. Hence if EMPU is allowed to register and campaign it will be restricted to spending only $120,000 in total, probbaly less than $5 per member…not $120,000 per member. The Electoral Commission researched the subject and calculated that for a 3rd party group to run an “effective” advertising campaign they would probably need to spend $250-300,000 and recommended that this should be the limit. The HRC endorsed this sum.

In a radio interview on Radio New Zealand with Victoria University law lecturer Stephen Price last year I highlighted the case of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It has literally many thousands of financial supportters. Under the EFA if the SST wanted to run a campaign against any political party it would be limited to $120,000, not enough in the view of the EC and the HRC to run an “effective” campaign. Once the SST’s many thosands of supportters have donated a few dollars each, there is no point in them donating any more as it could not be spent on the campaign. Stephen Price had no answer to me and was reduced to asking if I was a lawyer, rather than acknowledging my argument. What is wrong with allowing the SST( a collective group of many thousands)to spend $250-300,000 opposing a political party if it wishes?

Far from restricting the “rich “, the EFA restricts ordinary New Zealanders ( such as the members of the SST and EPMU) from participating in democracy in NZ. Worse still it restricts all of us from hearing what these people may want to say. If the EFA continues it will be to Labour’s shame.

I mentioned last night that our group was very well treated by Labour Party organsisers on Saturday. I spoke to Mike Williams for about 5 minutes. I think he still does not understand my objections. At one point he turned to my group and counted up six protestors and said “he can spend $120″, “he can spend $120k”, etc…..$720k all up. However he is only partially correct. The law restricts people from colluding together and working in concert. So if my six protestors were part of the same group they are restricted to spending $120,000. Not $720,000.

However in opposing the EFB Rosslyn Noonan made the point at the Select Committee meeting on 18 October that the bill would not neccessarily “stop” the Brethren. Simply because you would need to prove in a court of law that individuals were in fact colluding. Another argument against the EFA. Those who have the resources and can employ the legal talent will do so and get their point accross, the rest of us will simply decide it is all to hard and simply not participate in elections for fear of prosecution. Once again the HRC called for greater participation in elections , rather than less.

Don’t you think that this is both trite and condescending? “Get a little more age and experience under your belt, and you may one day recognise that free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to be a thuggish bully.”

In the end, I’m willing to give Mr. Sleep credit for perhaps letting youthful enthusiasm overcome good judgment and plain common sense. Been there, done that, have the (well-deserved) thick ear to show for it. There’s a term for attitude tempered by experience — its called ‘growing up’.

I’m certainly confident Mr. Sleep is going to take a deep breath and be be a better advocate for his party than running around ripping up leaflets — or destroying opponents hoardings and so forth. It might amuse the sociopaths of the rabid right and loony left, but I’ve been around long enough to know that most people — regardless of party — don’t think that kind of b.s. is ‘just part of democracy’.

And just for the record, if Sleep was a Young Nat I’d also suggest he cash a reality check about acceptable and civil forms of campaigning.

Ah well, we are coming to some consensus, although ripping up a pamphlet doesn’t seem like “thuggery” to me, and I don’t think that Mr Sleep was advocating destroying opponents’ hoardings, which is unacceptable, I agree.

I thought Peak Oil summed things up fairly neatly: “Still, on the bright side, at least you didn’t have Len Richards dishing out his idea of megaphone justice at this event!” Amen!

“Another of the new Cabinet Ministers ripped up the pamphlet in front of the EFA protesters”

Bugger me silly with a rubber chicken, but isn’t that free speech and bloody good illustration of one’s feelings. Or was the poor protestor so bloody sensitive that they couldn’t handle their stupid pamplet being ripped up in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC expression of FREE SPEECH.

Did the new cabinet minister slap him/her? Did the new cabinet minister chase him/her about? Did the new cabinet minister threaten bodily harm?

It was a bloody piece of paper, and correct me if I am wrong but a non violent expression of protest against something that someone doesn’t think is worth the paper it is printed on is to rip it up.

My god you people are spineless, you wouldn’t even have the balls to eat your ballot paper as one inspired Italian did over the weekend.

“The protesters were the normal suspects complaining about the Urewera arrests, snails, mines etc” now add to that the disenfranchised right whom decry the death of free speech in NZ (which has been well established as untrue).

As for the fire alarm, I take it you have it on good authority that it wasn’t the protestors, or I’m just having a poor web searching day and can’t find the report that supports this.

“Totalitarian Sweden”, by the blogger “Fjordman”, is a very, very appropriate essay on the subject of liberal left political parties, their organised supporters, protests, and freedom of speech. HERE IT IS, the whole thing, EVERYBODY READ IT, ESPECIALLY JAMES SLEEP young fella, trust me, I have your good at heart.

TOTALITARIAN SWEDEN, By Fjordman

“According to the news website The Local, members of the only significant (but still small) party in Sweden critical of mass immigration live under constant threat of violence. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. The national newspaper Aftonbladet links the massive increase in rapes to the warm weather. The state-sponsored organization Expo, which lists a dozen employees at its website and receives backing from the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Expo’s Daniel Poohl states that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence. The writer Bruce Bawer says that “Sweden Democrats have been the targets of events that recall China’s Cultural Revolution. Staged ‘people’s protests’ by members of the ‘youth divisions’ of other parties have led to the firing of Sweden Democrats from their jobs. A few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country’s immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up Sweden Democratic meetings and beaten up party leaders.”

The Local: Sweden Democrats under constant threat

Leaders of the far-right Sweden Democrats live under constant threat of violence, according to new report from the Swedish security service Säpo.

– – – – – – – – –

Säpo reports that it receives an average of 4.5 reports per month of cases of threats made to Sweden’s district and county councillors.

The threats are systematic, often involve violence, and come from autonomous groups across Sweden. Media exposure and engagement in controversial issues often increase the incidence of threats, Säpo reports.

“This is a democratic problem as it happens that politicians leave their posts as a result of having received threats,” said Säpo analyst Johan Olsson to news agency TT.

Threats are most commonly made via email, letters and on the telephone and typically come from disgruntled citizens.

How the West Lost the Cold War

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats, a small party critical of mass immigration, was recently attacked at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimizing aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham.

Antifascistisk Aktion, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. Only a week after this group harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked representatives of AFA. Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.

[…]

According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely.

The Death of Sweden

A judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home.

[…]

The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) writes on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers.

[…]

AFA openly brag about numerous attacks against persons who get their full name and address published on their website. According to them, this is done in order to fight against capitalist exploitation and for a global, classless society. Their logic goes something like this: If you protest against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we all know, and they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest against being assaulted or raped by Muslims, you are evil and need to be silenced. If a native Swede is really lucky, he or she will thus first get mugged or battered by Muslims, and then beaten up a second time by his own extreme Leftists for objecting to being beaten the first time. The state does next to nothing to prevent either.”

PhilBest, It might suit your purposes to confuse “liberal left political parties” and the Antifascistisk Aktion, but you will need to produce some credible evidence of organic links to get away with this smear. The Swedish social democrats that I know would be as shocked as anyone here at the actions of the AA.

Jafapete, all it takes is for the liberal leftists to stack the media and the education system and propagandise everyone about how oppressed minorities are, women, gays, racial minorities, etc, how everything is the fault of “the rich” and white straight males “exploiting” everybody else and the environment, and before long, you will get stuff happening like the Virginia Tech massacre (listen to the Chomskyite propaganda the gunman spouted on his website about injustice and inequality and “rich kids”), The Unabomber, Te Qaeda, and “AntiFascistik Aktion” – all the while, like you say, the “liberal democrats” wring their hands and say oh dear, how did this happen? All the while doing nothing about it, the propaganda continuing to be funded by the government, the welfarism and fatherlessness epidemic continuing, crime rising, the Swedish cops like the NZ ones looking the other way when it suits their political masters.

The only explanation for this is that the liberal left WANT crime, anarchy, and unaccounted-for violence against their ideological opponents. Te Qaeda wanted to assassinate John Key once he became PM. Oh dear, however did that happen? The Maori Battallion would be spinning in their graves. Oddly enough this sort of stuff is EXACTLY what the doctor ordered, when we are talking about Dr Gramsci or Dr Marcuse or their ilk, all of whom are idolised by our institutions of learning.

PhilBest, you are one disturbed little puppy. You seem to be saying that the Virginia Tech massacre was the culmination of the process of recognising that “women, gays, racial minorities, etc” are human beings with equal rights. Speaking of doctors, you need to see one real quick. Scary stuff.

I thought Peak Oil summed things up fairly neatly: “Still, on the bright side, at least you didn’t have Len Richards dishing out his idea of megaphone justice at this event!” Amen!

QFT… Though, back in the day, I’m reasonably confident that if I’d tried to give Sue Bradford a baptism by megaphone she’d have shoved it where the sun don’t shine without benefit of an open-air autopsy.

“all it takes is for the liberal leftists to stack the media and the education system and propagandise everyone about how oppressed minorities are, women, gays, racial minorities, etc, how everything is the fault of “the rich”

or you could just be a confused misinformed conspiracy theorist like yourself.

The chinese whispers from liberal leftists to Viginia Tech is inspired lunacy at it’s best.

As for Dad4 popping up over your shoulder with insults, reminds me very much of a wimp in the school yard hurling abuse from behind the bully – very strange behavior Dad – but what else have we come to expect from someone who has neither the ability or the inclination to engage in anything other than insults and insanity.

Jafapete and Paul: Can’t you see ANY connection between the Virginia Tech shooter’s rantings and the “poor you, you’re a victim” propaganda shit that YOUR favourite “liberal” ideology is stuffing into Uni students like him just as fast as it can be?

It’s not just him, either. There have been ideologies LIKE these underlying the beginnings of every murderous totalitarian movement. All that “deconstructionism” and “critical theory” stuff. and political correctness and cultural Marxism was DESIGNED by guys like Marcuse who LOVED the idea of rich pricks blood flowing down the streets and were disappointed that it hadn’t happened in all christendom, thanks to the strength of all those “social constructs” that said that it wasn’t right to steal what you hadn’t earnt, or to murder people for it, or to rebel against the authorities.

The longer time goes on, the less and less this stuff looks like conspiracy theorising. If we’ve got whole media-political movements based on making excuses for the most murderous terrorism on the basis that it is the result of people being “deprived”, WHAT THE F. do you EXPECT that will do for incentivising every wack job with a chip on his shoulder to go doing a bit of the same? You guys are either very stupid dupes or you’re as guilty as sin yourself and you want to shut down anybody who is awake to your filthy movement’s ultimate designs with smear jobs, while decent people remain too busy to bother themselves. This is how Hitler got established.

“Silly theory, less relation to reality” Yeah, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. The filthy plans of Gramsci, Marcuse and Co are coming to fruition all around us, TODAY. It’s gonna get a lot worse, too, and when the public wakes up, it’ll be too late, just like with decent Germans in the 1930’s. The intellectuals of the establishment are busily readying whole generations of young to regard wave after wave of assaults on human rights as “good” and “right”. The EFB. Anti-smacking. Crims on the loose, and kid-gloves criminal justice. Nothing is anybody’s own fault, they are oppressed and deprived. Bleeeeaaaaah. Smearing and mocking your opponents as conspiracy theorists is just part of the dirty game your kind are up to. You might have fooled the majority for now, but you ain’t fooled everybody.

“The other night, I was challenged by reid on Kiwiblog to watch an earth/mind shattering video about the origins and outcomes of Political Correctness, which would enlighten me as to the harm it has done. I would also assume that it would shake the very foundations of my political being and awaken me to the foolishness of my ideology.

To quote reid “Many people are fooled by the fact the evil ones wrap up their various messages in the guise of “human rights.”

So from the off, to have belief in Human Rights is to be evil. It’s a hell of a start when you are faced with the prospect of the likes of Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandella being essentially evil people.

But against my better judgement (and in the interest of fairness) I decided to watch the said video. The video it turns out was created by William S Lind, a cultural conservative of The Free Congress Foundation.

twat
[notice the pipe, leather chair, the furnitre, those ears – this is one earnest gentleman, and so obviously knowledgeable. He actually put’s the pipe to his lips at one stage, but I dare not think he actually inhaled.]

The video starts with the scary and resounding hypothesis, “For the first time, Americans today, are not free to say what they think… they may be violating the unholy commandments of the 90’s, commonly know as Political Correctness”. You should see the look of ernest resignation on his face.

But wait this gets better.

“And it seems that a deteriorating society is exactly Political Correctness strives for.”
“But what exactly is Political Correctness? As you are about to see, Political Correctness is nothing less than a Marxist Ideology.”

Lind then proceeds to conduct a pretty sterile and ideologically driven history lesson, drawing the long bow of conclusion which was fundamentally and critically flawed. Suggesting, as the Frankfurt School failed in it’s quest to overthrow Western Political and Cultural society, coupled with their fleeing to the US during the Nazi dictatorship of Germany in WWII, the scholars nestled in American Colleges, thus influencing the liberal minds.

Lind states, “What is Critical Theory? The theory is to criticise. Through unremitting destructive criticism of every institution of western society, they hope to bring that society down. Critical Theory is the basis for gay studies, black studies, women’s studies and various other ’studies’ departments found on American campuses today”.

Apparently it is a evil Marxist plot to have the emancipation of Gays, Blacks and Women. These ‘victim’ groups were nothing more than puppets of Marcuse and the work of the Marxists. As the working classes weren’t active participants (Marxism had failed in this evil plot we are told over and over) in the Marxist revolution, these ‘victim’ groups flew the flag. It was the Politically Correct liberals who were responsible for the sexual revolution. Implying that the emancipation of Women was again an evil Marxist plot.

Essentially, the conclusion of his hypothesis is thus;

If you are Politically Correct you are a puppet of a Marxist plot to overthrow the institutions of civil western society. Which of course suggests, that to think is to be evil, and thus we should not think.

Now this is stunningly similar to the dogma that surrounds religious fundamentalism, of which western society was built upon, and not at all surprising that this sort of analysis should come from such a cultural conservative military historian.

What was most depressing, was that those on the right of Kiwiblog during this thread about Dover Sammuels vacuous statements that PC was killing NZ society (William S Lind to a tee), all defended not only the assumptions, but his conclusions.

Reid again “you’ll see” [in reference to the video] “the real goal of PC is to attack the family unit. It’s a long-term cross-generational project. The fact most of its proponents don’t understand the agenda doesn’t make the agenda disappear.”

I then challenged those arguing against Political Correctness to show me an example of what they mean, instead of making sweeping meaningless accusations. To which I would try to illustrate that this in fact wasn’t Political Correctness, but in fact an issue of something altogether.

Reid replied with this article in which authorities in the UK were putting a working party together to explore the virtues and pitfalls of potential compulsory sex education for 5 year olds. It was easy to see that this in fact wasn’t political correctness, but an example of Educational Policy.

Political Correctness is an all encompassing catchphrase of the disaffected and those firmly entrenched in dogma. Where Dover Samuels used the term to criticise the political ideology of the current political and intellectual elite, without actually managing to define what his concerns were.

And that is my problem with the anti-PC brigade. They are unwilling (not so Mr Lind) to hide behind pithy catchphrases, without the ability or willingness to actually say what they are concerned about. Which is a real shame, as the ability to express ones self is at the cornerstone of human existence.

Now I appreciate that Kiwiblog and the political blogosphere in NZ is not the place to come to find academically (or otherwise) stringent political discourse. Indeed the words of some on that blog bounce from practically insane to that of outright violent abuse. But alas this is the NZ political blogosphere, and while I wasn’t expecting the greatest defense of anti PC thought, I was hoping for something that resembled reality.

Those who adhere to this theory of William Lind, poses neither the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what the really mean, nor the ability to critically appreciate that it is something other than the all encompassing Political Correctness that is bothering them. To say that Political Correctness is responsible for the moral and social degradation of Kiwi society, is a false vacuous statement.

Remember too, that this is from Kiwiblog, one of the most fervent attackers of the Election Finance Act which according to them will kill free speech and thus democracy in New Zealand – which of course it hasn’t. Seemingly free speech is fine as long as it is the free speech of the cultural and political elite of the right.”

Typical leftist “intellectual” blurring of the issues. Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela, my foot. They’re nothing to do with the ultimate objectives of Gramsci, Marcuse and Co. What Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa stand for is not contradictory of the Judeo-Christian ethics system that the Gramsci/Marcuse stuff is trying to destroy. The Cultural Marxists DON’T STOP. It’s the difference between, say, Martin Luther King and Louis Farrakhan.

Undermine the family, remove the stigma of birth out of wedlock, remove the stigma of idleness, promote free love, promiscuity and every type of sexuality under the sun, get racial minorities worked up and demanding the impossible, and you are gonna destroy society ultimately, and the Frankfurt School MEANT it to BE this way. If you won’t admit that, what other conclusion can we draw other than that you’re OK with that? Of course the ’60’s uni student generation loved this stuff – they were young and foolish enough to, and it gave them a “good time”.

Gramsci and the Frankfurt School guys just happen to have desired Marxist revolution ushering in Communist egalitarianism. It is too much of a coincidence to me to accept that so much of their theory has made it into the uni “mainstream” and laws of the land are being passed today that facilitate exactly what these guys wanted. Crime, violent crime, anarchy, economic breakdown, mostly consequent on family breakdown and badly-brought-up, fatherless, kids, plus state indoctrination and dumbing-down. “reid”, Redbaiter, and me and a few others on this blog are bright enough and awake enough to see what is happening.

Marcuse himself used the term “repressive tolerance” regarding the way opponents of their program were to be handled. Pro-smackers are labelled “child beaters”. There are countless other examples.

The stupid thing is that once you HAVE a Commie regime, they KNOW not to allow ANY of this stuff because it would weaken THEIR society. They get THEIR supporters to use these things to weaken Free societies. So any pro-Communist who supports all this “liberation” stuff is just being a white ant.

I’m not going to do links to all these, because the Kiwiblog system doesn’t like it, but William S. Lind is far from alone:

Google them yourselves:

“Who Stole Our Culture” and “What is Cultural Marxism?” by William S. LIND

“The Historical Roots of Political Correctness” by Raymond V. RAEHN

“Gramsci’s Grand Plan” by James THORNTON

“Gramsci: A Method To the Madness” by William Norman GRIGG

“What is the Frankfurt School” by Gerald L. ATKINSON

“Enthralled By Cultural Marxism” by Chuck MORSE

“Gramsci and the US Body Politic” by Alberto LUZARRAGA

“The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance” BOOK by Rolf Wiggershaus; REVIEW by David WEININGER

“Why There is a Culture War” by John FONTE

“Missing Diversity”; “Today’s Culture Wars”; and “Up From Multiculturalism” By David Horowitz

“The Ongoing Marxist March against The Western Mind” by Frank MORRISS

“What if you found out that bad stuff is happening on purpose?” By Charley REESE

“The New Left, Cultural Marxism, and Psychopolitics disguised as Multiculturalism” By Linda KIMBALL